Shutter Speed vs Resolution

AJSJones wrote in post #13623280
Can I get a glass or toke of whatever Delija is having

lol, I think it's one, followed by the other

Higgs Boson wrote in post #13620178
I'd like this thread to elaborate on this concept of higher resolutions needing more shutter speed and also what shutter speeds the experienced photogs here use for a given situation.

..

Bosscat wrote in post #13623227
Resolution has little to do with this as much as the speed and direction of travel in relation to the shutter speed used.

Yeah, sorry I got so far off the OP topic. But I agree with what Bosscat here says - resolution (in a perfect world) would have virtually nothing to do with shutter speed. There is an affect (less and less as technology improves) but it's due to the heat build-up on a sensor with a digital camera if at all - But with normal shutter speeds and normal ISO settings shutter speeds should be irrelevant. With today's modern SLR cameras, if shooting at 1/20th of a second at ISO 100 or if shooting at 1/400 of a second at ISO 1600, the results should be indistinguishable.

I don't see where resolution is a factor at all...or even can be quite sure as to what your mean by the term. A Canon 1D3 has 10MP and a Canon 5D has 12MP - I would think that a 15MP 50D would not get as good results with the same (normal) shutter speeds (with same aperture and ISO) as either of the older cameras - A newer tech 18mp Rebel should give any of the three of them a run or the money. So it's about the state of technology more than any "ideal" settings.

Rules of Thumb exist so people can be aware of certain issues without having to understand them at the sub-atomic or doctorate level.

1/Focal Length
Rule of Thirds
Look / Move Space
Normal or Longer for portrait focal lengths
Etc...

It is possible to achieve Paralisys By Analisys whereby you spend so much time studying the finer points of photography that you never go out and actually commit photography.

Delija wrote in post #13623360
I don't see where resolution is a factor at all...or even can be quite sure as to what your mean by the term. A Canon 1D3 has 10MP and a Canon 5D has 12MP - I would think that a 15MP 50D would not get as good results with the same (normal) shutter speeds (with same aperture and ISO) as either of the older cameras - A newer tech 18mp Rebel should give any of the three of them a run or the money. So it's about the state of technology more than any "ideal" settings.

Well, there your comparing the quality of the light collected, not the effect on resolution.

Resolution doesn't matter if you don't crop, and all samples are presented to the viewer in a size where the lowest resolution has enough fidelity to make the two indistinguishable.

The only reason resolution was really something I talked about, was the OP wanted to know why the image, when looked at 100% crop, showed motion.

Delija wrote in post #13623360
I don't see where resolution is a factor at all...or even can be quite sure as to what your mean by the term.

Whether it's DoF or diffraction, the blur will spread a sharp image across more pixels than it should. So does motion of either the camera or the subject. For diffraction, the smaller the pixels, the more easily they are degraded by stopping down the aperture because the stopping down increases the blur. SO you can tolerate less blur if you print so the sharpness of each pixel is visible. If you don't print that lrge (or crop that much) it will not be visible.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #13623364
Rules of Thumb exist so people can be aware of certain issues without having to understand them at the sub-atomic or doctorate level.

It is possible to achieve Paralisys By Analisys whereby you spend so much time studying the finer points of photography that you never go out and actually commit photography.

So in the rainy afternoons, aren't you glad there are people who think about, understand and advance the technology for your benefit so we can all go out and commit photography. Just because someone understands this and has a doctorate or something has no bearing on whether they are a good photographer or not - so wisecracks like that are a bit irritating.

mafoo wrote in post #13623413
Resolution doesn't matter if you don't crop, and all samples are presented to the viewer in a size where the lowest resolution has enough fidelity to make the two indistinguishable.

The only reason resolution was really something I talked about, was the OP wanted to know why the image, when looked at 100% crop, showed motion.

Right - the answer is still "It depends" but increased resolution can make blur more visible and blur can be decreased by shooting with a faster shutterspeed. The waves in the water are probably also a little blurrier than they would have been with a faster shutterspeed, but that would depend on the windspeed, not the trainspeed

AJSJones wrote in post #13623470
Right - the answer is still "It depends" but increased resolution can make blur more visible...

But I thought we agreed that only happens after we reach the point where the lower resolution image would start to show diminished overall quality due to it's resolution.

So in my eyes, it really doesn't matter, because the only way to make it matter, is to create a senario where the other option is unacceptable anyway.

I think the point of the 1/FL rule has been completely missed by mostly everyone on this thread, unless I am readings something wrong.

It has nothing to do with motion blur of the subject, but with the motion blur of you.

I was under the impression that 1/FL was how fast you had to have the shutter speed to negate any effects of hand holding the lens. The shorter the lens, the less movement of your arm effects the image. But a long lens, any movement you have is greatly exagerated by the lens.

EDIT: Nvm, I see this thread took a turn near the beginning I missed.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #13623364
It is possible to achieve Paralisys By Analisys whereby you spend so much time studying the finer points of photography that you never go out and actually commit photography.

That sounds like something Ken Rockwell says about forums....LOL!!!

Raylon wrote in post #13623492
I think the point of the 1/FL rule has been completely missed by mostly everyone on this thread, unless I am readings something wrong.

It has nothing to do with motion blur of the subject, but with the motion blur of you.

I was under the impression that 1/FL was how fast you had to have the shutter speed to negate any effects of hand holding the lens. The shorter the lens, the less movement of your arm effects the image. But a long lens, any movement you have is greatly exagerated by the lens.

EDIT: Nvm, I see this thread took a turn near the beginning I missed.

What would you know about hand held photography?

<looks over at Raylon's avatar, and backs out of the room slowly>

AJSJones wrote in post #13623470
So in the rainy afternoons, aren't you glad there are people who think about, understand and advance the technology for your benefit so we can all go out and commit photography. Just because someone understands this and has a doctorate or something has no bearing on whether they are a good photographer or not - so wisecracks like that are a bit irritating.

So are those who profess profound photographic knowledge without ever posting an image...

mafoo wrote in post #13623525
What would you know about hand held photography?

<looks over at Raylon's avatar, and backs out of the room slowly>

Did ya happen to notice mine...?

The train, if traveling 45 mph, is moving 0.16875 feet in the 1/400 second your shutter is open no matter the MP. The blur will be spread across more pixels if you're pixel peeping but unless your printing a billboard, I really don't think you'd see it.

mafoo wrote in post #13623490
But I thought we agreed that only happens after we reach the point where the lower resolution image would start to show diminished overall quality due to it's resolution.

That's exactly what happens when you get a newer camera with more MP (per the OP's question) - you can print bigger than you used to (if you think e.g. 240ppi is a good resolution to print at), so you are printing at an enlargement (from sensor size to print size) beyond where the lower res camera would have pooped out because the lower resolution didn't capture the details well enough to print big. So that's a big yes - we have more MP, so we can print bigger (or crop more) and then we need to consider blur more carefully than we did before.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #13623533
So are those who profess profound photographic knowledge without ever posting an image...

So now someone has to post on sites where your eyes frequent before you can consider they might understand some of the technology and be able to take good photos??? Even more condescending, I'd say.

If you really want to see some of my pictures, you can look here for some very tiny images from my 4x5 camera but you won't have any idea what the 24x30 prints look like, so that's why I don't often post postage stamp size pictures (and when I do it isn't necessarily here,if that's how you have "judged" my comments). The other albums contain images of varying "quality" depending on their purpose. This is all by way of a hobby while my training is in spectroscopy and, yes, I do have a Doctorate but alas, not at the sub-atomic level, merely biophysics

To throw something else into this most interesting (but probably pointless) discussion, the direction of the slot of the focal plane shutter and orientation will also affect the result. A vertical shutter slot traversing the sensor in the opposite direction of travel will affect what each pixel sees, as will a horizontal slot.